Machiya

Yes - many thanks. I find GCS tends to spilt squads into individual units (but need to test this more, as it may be a MOD clash).

Once the mission is built, run and processed/cached -- is it straight-forward to add more units in the editor? ie. Does the SQL database update if the units are moved/new units added between missions. I am just trying to predict how I would plot a campaign out using GCS. I cannot tell if you plan in detail whole series of missions with ambient enemy units. STOP (ie. don't add more stuff). Play that through. Start again.

Sorry if they are not ideal videos, but I hope they are interesting to a few people. I don't have a vast amount of time to do these tests. I don't see other people doing comparative tests, so I have put them up. My hope is that they are OK 'as is'. (honestly, if I get a pile of static I just won't post them). I don't give my opinion, as we all have our own bias. This is not a 'king of the hill' thing. There are very clear differences between the MODS (and I did try to simply label which mod was running). Each mission is: 3 Fire-teams with SENTRY + GUARD WP and a fourth with a 'Seek and Destroy'. Both sides are identical. I chose the terrain to have an initial blocking obstacle, with narrow exposure with trees on one side and a sloped field on the other. @LSValmont - if you can suggest a preferable scenario/arrangement, I would be very interested. p.s the video before is me beginning to explore a long-held view that ARMA throttles decision making over 50-80 active Ai. At 160 Ai (subjectively) the engine appears to be 'dumping' hit detection.

Just ran a comparison between Vanilla / LAMBS / VCOM 3.4.0 beta (19/06/2020).

A user was suggesting that the ARMA 'engine' degraded decision-making when there were more than about 60-80 Ai. I ran a few tests (1) Vanilla 32 units/side; (2) Vanilla 80 units/side & (3) LAMBS 80 units/side. Interesting to see the differences: (1) lots of units get shot; (2) & (3) proportionately ALOT less get shot (for the increased fire volumes) - Vanilla 80 vs 80 and LAMBS 80 vs 80 are pretty similar.

Got it. Cheers

Thank you -- that's very useful information. Great Mod overall.

May I ask a couple of questions, (1) I read, (Page 6 here) and elsewhere, about PiR vs. body-armour. I couldn't find a changelog to look at. How does the system currently deal with 'hitpart' if it has body-armour protection. (2) Is it possible to direct a medic (on your squad) to treat/revive a squad member. It did seem to trigger if you told the medic to 'move' within a certain distance? Does a medikit change his response or is it only IFAK? How does this work within an AI squad (distance, %chance, something else)? Many Thanks.

+ 1 to the list of people loving this MOD. Awesome work. 11/10! One of the things with AI 'finding cover' is that the squad breaks-up (and never reforms). This works well for guerrilla tactics, less so for trained troops. VCOM; ASR same. TCL squads were a bit more coherent, MCC4's Gaia just set waypoints [it was more of a Macro AI Mod] -- but you go the sensation you were facing a squad (#fully support you not touching WP!!!) I would be intrigued to hear your perspective on above? You write, "Added isolated squad leaders will try to regroup" in the release notes. I think squad integrity is an aspect of tactical group movement that is worthwhile. Those of us that play with AI squads would (I imagine) be definitely up for something that stops squads 'evaporating in four directions' when you back is turned (whilst getting all of the 'good stuff' -- i.e. not simple stripping them of the MOD). Food for thought perhaps.

@nkenny I can confirm that the disabling the 'group' for zeus AI groups and BOTH 'group' and 'AI' for player groups (if you have AI in the player group) seems to work well. Looking forward to future versions.

Knowledge Error from RPT (https://pastebin.com/UbrnDh9y)

@snkman Long time since I have had a chance to catch-up... been involved in projects IRL) Will have a look at TCL this week - like the sound of some of the changes. Can I ask about the current status of Zeus stuff? - Are you including units placed after the first 5 secs? - I see you are with-holding TCL control from units that are given Zeus WP... is this all TCL stuff or just some?

re. AI inits Yes, it's a Zeus thing, but also about a handles for other MODders to interact with TCL (e.g. like turn it off, so they can do something, and then turn it back on again). Essentially, it might be good to be able to re-init a unit, even as a function. re. Zeus Waypoints OK.

Dug this link out from Shay_gman & Spirit's GAIA AI in MCC, https://mccsandbox.fandom.com/wiki/GAIA_cycles

A couple of Zeus thoughts. A Zeus 'Hold WP' or 'Garrison WP' making a squad 'TCL_Hold' would be great. A Zeus 'Seek and Destroy' WP ought to make a TCL squad push inside the 300m zone. I was trying to think of a way that you can use Zeus WPs to automatically alter TCL_Status or a squad. One less thing to worry about. I could think of something that would naturally work for 'TCL_Defend' -- other than a Zeus Guard WP (but that comes with a pile of BIS hard-coded stuff).

A query about inits from MadCheese (author of the C2 Mod), "I am using < this setVariable ["TCL_Disabled", true]; > to pre-init Player controlled elements, but I am not clear on the effect. If used both squads and HC level groups AND units. I had some issues with a TCL error hint telling me to never initialise multiple times.I'm a bit confused with the whole thing." I assume only squad (not unit) TCL_Disabled are effective [I don't know much about High Command level Groups.

From the testing I did earlier this week -- and for people setting stuff up in Zeus -- Stealth + Vanilla + 'Crouch' and 'Staggered Column' made a positive difference to CQB movement PRIOR to COMBAT (seeing the enemy). Also, Fireteams moved better than squads -- basically you get two groups of four moving, which more real.

Just tested TCL with AI Groups of TWO; set to Stealth and Slow. I also tested Squads of 8 -- and it wasn't as interesting. When TCL calls for reinforcement, its less of a rush [note the two OPFOR units to the rear not engaged YET]. TCL Reinforcement Request (Knowledge) is set up a notch at '1' [0-4; default =0].

@TesACC If you want more 'authentic' BLUEFOR Arty then you might look at Drongo's Artillery MOD. Otherwise, look at the FFE MOD (Fire for Effect) which ups the Artillery game generally (inc. allowing time for calcs + spotting/ranging fire). With FFE, if they have got it, they will use it -- don't say I didn't warn you! @snkman TCL triggers Arty nicely, so -- before letting loose -- maybe think about a delay (simulating calcs) and emulating ranging (a couple of randomly located single shots on the 'perceived' position of enemy). Getting into shaping the sheaf (say based on AI knowledge of various groups in close proximity) might be a step too far?!

Sometimes I just miss the simple stuff -- good call. @ZackTactical34 What does the 3-man team with an enemy look like? Does Combat vs. Stealth make a difference? If you 'Hold Fire'... does 'Engage' vs. 'Engage at Will' make a difference'? TCL could (I'm sure) switch to 'Open Fire' or 'Fire' at the last moment -- if the CQB movement was really convincing ;0) I was just thinking that the AI Engine is primed to fire ASAP, but -- as you demonstrated -- CQB balances pushing sectors whilst maintaining best cover elsewhere; so controlling firing might help.

That is some seriously AWESOME stuff -- cannot wait to give it a try!

Bingo -- that's definitely the main thing! Occasionally, TCL groups will have to un-garrison to move (do they re-garrison if they are way-pointed on a building?) Working through the process, Normal editor stuff. Press play. Re-direct units with WPs (as above). Basically, the groups act more like TCL_Enhanced whilst responding to a WP -- would they automatically, switch back to 'Aware'? Might be a bit odd if they are under fire? How they transition between TCL and WP (esp. under fire) may or may not need looking at. After that, If we can use BIS 'hold' WP then we probably don't need to tweak TCL_Status in Zeus ---as units will HOLD (as the WP never completes). If not, then it would be good to be able to change the <TCL_status> of a unit. Best would be via the Zeus side menu's drag and drop 'buttons'. For example, removing TCL_Hold from a unit. After that, its about 'finessing the groups 'micro' actions' by directing the group to do something (making it easier for a Zeus to keep control of the battlefield), say, Mount closest static. Smoke, Disengage and Fallback (say 300m). Stop standing in the open and take cover (not so much with TCl thankfully, but a common AI habit). select an Arty, Mortar or Tank unit and then map-click an area to fire at or suppress Re-arm ;0) I could use all of these. Stuff that would make the AI seem even more alive to the players. A bit of sleight of hand that would make TCL feel even better. I'm sure other people can add thoughts! However, It is important to keep all of this this in the AI arena. Don't let TCL bloat. You have 30-40 fps over the competition at the moment. For example, the Achilles MOD has a nice reinforcement workflow -- no need to replicate it (FYI, I run TCL with Achilles).

Yeah, I made that mistake... It's the "checked once only" bit I think I am getting to. TCL favours 'pre-arranged' missions over more Zeus like environments. Got it. Those are beautiful thoughts... Great news - just a big fat faction on/off switch/cull would be awesome. Better, to be able to set the TCL_Status of a Faction (e.g. TCL_Enhanced for a Zeus game). Very kind of you to say -- I must say I really love what TCL brings to ARMA. I'm old time gamer -- but only got to ARMA with ARMA 3 (post Zeus), so its been there all along. In a Zeus led game, you have to turn off TCL movement and reinforcements ('cos as Zeus you control these things). I think I have hit the three key area that might facilitate turning this back on. Excluding (or better still specifying the <TCL_Status> of) a Faction (using the faction code???). Prioritising the latest WP (as opposed to back-tracking the pre TCL movement WP) or better disengaging when a WP is given (i.e. your commander is telling a group to do something specific). It could be a WP Priority Flag or %bias? It would favour 'live' / ' active' WP making. [ps. this might have to un-garrison units too]. Re polling a units TCL_Status, which would allow it to be changed in Zeus using <group this setVariable ["TCL_???Status???", True];> In which case, one might need TCL_Combat and TCL_Aware ;0) --- Lastly, a complete aside, I am not seeing alot of soldiers using FAKs or Re-arming (aka running around with pistols). If that is hard-coded BIS... err, it not exactly 5 x 5 (Loud and Clear).

TESTING UPDATE: v1021 I have been playing with the Arma/Userconfig/TCL settings (note: Arma has to start with -filepatching to access this data). Sometimes you really want stuff to stay in place! (Already covered may times in this forum). TCL_AI.sqf / Disable (Move) = True [default = False]. TCL_AI.sqf / Disable (Reinforce) = True [default = False]. Otherwise, TCL_AI.sqf / Reinforcement Request (Knowledge), really make a huge difference to the fire-fight. I like it at '2' [0-4;default=0] as it slows down reinforcement requests and at the same time produces a probing assault. THIS SEEMS TO BE A VERY SIGNIFICANT VARIABLE! TCL_Radio.sqf / Time, adjusts the speed of reinforcement. Try setting it to '0'(!) TCL_Radio.sqf / Distance, I tweaked to stop units being pulled from the other side of the map. Moving a tank 5km (to me) is a Zeus/Commander thing - but that is the game I play. FEEDBACK Once the mission has started and the TCL variable for each unit have been init'd. It seems that they are fixed. In Zeus, I tried 'group this setVariable ["TCL_Combat", True];' on a unit in a group set to TCL_Hold. I don't think it changes behaviour. Basically, I wanted to move units around the battlefield strategically, but found this very difficult. Development thoughts (just throwing them out there), As a commander, you want a group to go to the designated waypoint (even disengaged to do so). TCL could favour waypoints within the movement algorithm. It would be useful for TCL groups to respond to init changes through Zeus. Maybe it does, I just couldn't confirm it? Might it be possible for TCL to only affect a particular Faction (i.e. only OPFOR because the player is controlling BLUEFOR). This way you can Zeus-in OPFOR units and ( through Zeus) 'init' BLUEFOR units as 'TCL_Enhanced'. Better perhaps, to be able to automatically set the 'init' status of all units in a faction (i.e set all OPFOR units to 'TCL_Combat or Aware' and all BLUEFOR units to 'TCL_Enhanced'). Finally, I remain hugely impressed with TCL, which consistently delivers 30 – 40 FPS more than other (well known) AI MODS.

Sorry -- wrote this down too quickly first time. I have seen lots of, Many positive comments talking about how individual TCL controlled soldiers react in a fire-fight. Stuff similar to my own testing which shows that groups stay well-formed in a fire-fight -- IMHO better than ASRAI or VCOM (these mods seem to favour a 'fire at will, engage at will' perceptive -- i.e. groups spread out). These two aspects draw people to TCL. Gold Stars all round. BTW [Does TCL drive re-arming or using FAKS??] People who are walking away from TCL are mainly doing so because reinforcement calls to 'standard' (unmodified) groups are very strong. It pulls units across the map. Some of these people are Zeus, who are putting down live groups. How to re-init a group in a live game is not obvious (Could add this to .pdf?) Some are people trying to direct units in a high command like manner -- and find them wandering off (These people are users, not mission-makers/Zeus) One way or another people aren't getting the TCL_<status> message; despite how you have articulated it in the read me. I don't have an answer yet. What I was leading on to say is that I will do some video clip tests covering the different TCL_<status> and configuring them in a live game. If a dedi server has filepatching turned off. How does TCL access the variables?